Case Title: Mohan Lal v. The State of Rajasthan
Date of Decision: August 17, 2023
Case ID: S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1119/2003
Presiding Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Farjand Ali
Introduction:
The present Criminal Revision Petition seeks to challenge the judgment dated November 28, 2003, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 20/2002. This judgment upheld the conviction and sentencing orders issued on November 2, 2002, by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapasan, Chittorgarh, in Criminal Regular Case No. 08/1995. The petitioner, Mohan Lal, was found guilty of violating Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In case of default in paying the fine, an additional one-month simple imprisonment was prescribed.
Facts:
In 1993, Food Inspector Labh Shankar Bohra conducted an inspection at the petitioner’s shop, where he was selling milk stored in a container. Suspecting adulteration, the food inspector collected a milk sample from the petitioner following due procedure. This sample was subsequently sent for analysis to a public analyst, who confirmed it to be adulterated (as per report Ex. P-12). Upon obtaining prosecution sanction, a complaint was filed against the petitioner under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The learned magistrate summoned the accused, framed charges, and the petitioner pleaded not guilty, opting for a trial. After a comprehensive trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as detailed earlier. His appeal against this judgment was also dismissed, leading to the current revision petition.
Judgment:
While the petitioner did not contest his conviction in this revision petition, his counsel focused on an alternative request for the reduction of the sentence. The counsel argued that there was non-compliance with Section 13(2) of the PF Act, as the reports from two different laboratories (Udaipur and Pratapgarh) were not supplied to the petitioner. Emphasizing that the incident dated back to 1993 and that the petitioner had already endured a prolonged trial spanning 30 years, during which he had no prior criminal record and no adverse remarks about his conduct were made, the counsel urged leniency. Considering these factors, the petitioner’s age (63 years), and the time he had spent in custody, the counsel requested the reduction of the sentence to the period already served.
While the court maintained the judgment of conviction, it did not interfere with the finding of guilt. However, it took into account the lengthy timeline of the case and the petitioner’s age. Consequently, the court decided to exercise leniency in the matter of sentencing.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by Yagya Agarwal
